Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37609456›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in radiology2023

The promise and limitations of artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal imaging.

Patrick Debs, Laura M Fayad

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Double trouble - identifying rating inconsistencies due to double ratings of the "Show backbone" study.Journal of occupational medicine and toxicology (London, England) · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Artificial intelligence in musculoskeletal applications: a primer for radiologists.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Artificial Intelligence in Dentistry: A Descriptive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  18. Bone tumors: state-of-the-art imaging.Skeletal radiology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Patrick DebsThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Laura M FayadThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology & Radiological Science, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the recent developments in deep learning and the rapid growth of convolutional neural networks, artificial intelligence has shown promise as a tool that can transform several aspects of the musculoskeletal imaging cycle. Its applications can involve both interpretive and non-interpretive tasks such as the ordering of imaging, scheduling, protocoling, image acquisition, report generation and communication of findings. However, artificial intelligence tools still face a number of challenges that can hinder effective implementation into clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to explore both the successes and limitations of artificial intelligence applications throughout the muscuskeletal imaging cycle and to highlight how these applications can help enhance the service radiologists deliver to their patients, resulting in increased efficiency as well as improved patient and provider satisfaction.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceautomationimage interpretationmachine learningmusculoskeletal imagingneural networks

Identifiers

PMID37609456
PMCPMC10440743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.